The Early Verdict (kinda long)

[Orryn Emrys]

I think Hong hit on the difference between 4e and previous versions of D&D (excepting, perhaps, 1e). It's this: 4e is all about optimizing the group, not optimizing the individual. Players need to get into a mindset of taking actions in combat that are most beneficial for the group, and not (necessarily) the "best" action they might take as an individual PC. Combat has become communism, in a way, and this philosophy seems to permeate through the equally-balanced classes and their associated powers.

And this challenge, accessible in a way it never has been in previous rulesets, is one I think my group is ready for. Without any idea what 4E was going to be like, they developed a set of character concepts for our newest campaign that just walk right into this kind of group philosophy. They're characters are still very much individuals, but something about the backstory for the campaign (I'm converting War of the Burning Sky) captured their collective imagination in a way that forged individuals more than willing to learn to fight together toward a common cause. So I'm pretty excited about it, since I'm getting to see a 4th Edition launch that's heartily embraced by my drama-drenched method-actors.

Gone are the days wherein some classes would become non-viable in mid-high level adventures. Gone are the days wherein casters, or CODzilla, or whatever would take the spotlight encounter after encounter.

That, I think we'd agree, is Good. What remains to be seen is whether these equal-powered classes are different enough from their fellows, and different enough as they advance, to keep players interested in playing them.

I think they will... at least in the short term. What I'm concerned about is the possibility that it will all seem sort of old hat after a campaign or two. Particularly since I have a lot of players spread across several games every week. If Joe's mid-level rogue is going to be particularly similar to the one Bob played in the last game, will they really be enthused about it? They tend to look at characters more as people than a collection of statistics, so I might be selling them a bit short here... but it's hard not to get caught up in the rules when you're experimenting with something new and (so very) different.

Your mileage may vary...

 

[Particle_Man]

I'm still trying to figure out how to build a fighter who's an effective archer.

You build a ranger and have him call himself a fighter.

 

[aurance]

Amen Ydars. Amen. I am glad that a lot of people love the new system, but the vehemence that creeps up when somebody expresses their opinion that they don't like or question the news system is uncalled for.

I thought the review above was very well put and not bashing at all. They were just stating their opinion. Even if I didn't agree with some parts, it was well said and they are entitled.

Razuur

The review was fine, and I've not seen any bashing in this thread. "It's just my opinion" shouldn't be a blanket shield against someone poking holes in your logic, if you post said opinion on a discussion board.

 

[Ydars]

Cadfan; Now you are just digging yourself deeper. The OP WAS expressing an opinion in a measured way. I don't agree with every facet of the OP but you were just plain wrong with the way you expressed yourself. I am not saying I disagree with you, I am just tired of the aggressive way you put your opinion; It was discourteous, and given some of the great posts that I have seen you make on other threads, unworthy of you.

 

[el-remmen]

You build a ranger and have him call himself a fighter.

But a ranger is not a fighter. . .

 

[Ydars]

Aurance; no-one is saying that there should be no discussion, just that there are ways of saying things that are plain insulting. Like accusing someone of not believing what they are writing; i.e. that they are a troll. That implication seems pretty serious to me for what is a very mild OP.

The acid test I apply to my posts is this; would I say this to someone's face? If not then I don't post it because anyone can hide behind a message-board and sound big and talk tough, but it actually doesn't achieve anything other than to inflame argument; and I am sick of argument.

There is a big difference between debate/discussion and argument. In the latter, no one is listening; they are just trying to score points.

 

[Mallus]

But a ranger is not a fighter. . .

Only in the wacky parlance of D&D.

 

[helium3]

But the system doesn't hand out tactics, right? It only makes suboptimal builds something of a non-issue.

I'm not so sure. From what I can tell, it tends to hand out TPK's to party's with sub-optimal tactics.

 

[el-remmen]

Only in the wacky parlance of D&D.

What other parlance matters? We're talking about D&D!

 

[Cadfan]

Aurance; no-one is saying that there should be no discussion, just that there are ways of saying things that are plain insulting. Like accusing someone of not believing what they are writing; i.e. that they are a troll. That implication seems pretty serious to me for what is a very mild OP.

Its quite a mild and reasonable OP. That's what makes the wacky parts so jarring.